Signalling Rufford Red Lion Square- Pregrouping GCR

[James Harrison]

It's a going to be a longish time until I get around to it but ultimately for my planned Great Central layout I would like to install working and prototypically-laid-out signalling.  For my test piece photo plank I am using Ratio GWR square post signals, which are quite close to the GCR type in appearance (or at least, close enough for me) so for my main layout I intend to carry on using the same- eventually the photo plank will be tacked onto it so I want to maintain standards across the two. 

 

Whilst the photo plank was fairly simple to signal- a starter at the end of the platform- Red Lion Square itself is a beast of an altogether different nature and whilst I understand the rudiments of semaphore block signalling on running lines, I understand the basic principles but not the details....

 

So, how could I signal the attached track plan?  I know I'm going to need signals governing trains running into/ out of the station- and calling-on signals too for the platform roads, as I might well have vans or empty stock sitting on the stops- I would like to use a gantry for at least some of these across the station throat. I'm guessing the centre road would be controlled in the platforms by ground signals?  The goods yard I guess would have an entry/ exit signal but then within would all be controlled by the shunters?

 

Thanks for any help!

[RailWest]

Maybe my brain is a bit slow today :-), but I'm not clear about the function of the two lines of different lengths at the bottom LH corner. Is this a double-track line, so probably Down and Up lines, or a single-track line with a headshunt alongside it?

 

Is the bay at the top indended for passenger traffic?

[James Harrison]

The bottom left hand corner are the up and down running lines (these are just shown as running out, depending on space eventually they might well form a curve).  The bay at the top is more for incoming parcels and perishables traffic than anything else.

[imt]

You might find it useful to have a trailing crossover in front of what I assume is the signal box on your entry/exit lines.  May make egress from your top 2 platforms easier.  Even if they were arrival only, you still need to get stock and maybe locos out.  If the top platform was only for milk/parcels/mail you could I suppose arrive on the next platform down, run round and propel it in from the entry line: but then how do you get it out again?

[James Harrison]

Yes! That should be possible. And it makes things a little more flexible operationally too.

[imt]

17 hours ago, James Harrison said:

And it makes things a little more flexible operationally too.

 

Yes, I think it does.  Before anybody can help you much with signalling you do need to think through the traffic movements you are likely to want.  As I have been politely told many times by the signalling gurus - installing signals and maintaining them is expensive and so signals are only put where needed.  You also might like to think about the slip out of the "goods" area - if it isn't a double maybe it ought to be for security; that is isolating the movements in the goods yard from the passenger lines.  Following on from that maybe one of the spurs towards the signal box ought to be longer to provide a head shunt?  If you don't you will have to use the out main line to shunt the yard??

[Joseph_Pestell]

It is a rather strange track plan. There are four arrival roads (passenger/parcels) but only two for departure. It would more usually be the opposite.

 

To get the incoming trains on the upper platforms to somewhere that they can depart involves a shunt on the down (wrong) line. Not completely impossible but very unlikely as it means the inner home signal has to be placed much further away (probably off-scene on the model).

[imt]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

To get the incoming trains on the upper platforms to somewhere that they can depart involves a shunt on the down

 

Not since the OP agreed a trailing crossover in front of the signal box.

[RailWest]

Assuming that the large black rectangle at the bottom left is the signal-box (?), then IMHO its in an odd place. For a start, the signalman would have little or no view of the triple-road dead-end, so (a) he would need some sort of reminder for any vehicles left there and (b) the two trailing crossovers to the centre road would almost certainly be on a ground-frame, to be worked locally by a shunter who could actually see what was going on. I would suggest relocation to the opposite side of the line and moved to be adjacent roughly to the point leading from the approach (Down) line to the centre road.

 

The point at the LH end of the centre road would have to be a wide-to-gauge trap  (ie each switch blade worked independently and linked to its adjacent Up or Down line point) or a normal point with the addition of a scotch block. Otherwise there is no way of stopping a 'runaway' from the centre road from moving foul of one of the Up/Down roads.

[James Harrison]

2 hours ago, RailWest said:

Assuming that the large black rectangle at the bottom left is the signal-box (?), then IMHO its in an odd place. For a start, the signalman would have little or no view of the triple-road dead-end, so (a) he would need some sort of reminder for any vehicles left there and (b) the two trailing crossovers to the centre road would almost certainly be on a ground-frame, to be worked locally by a shunter who could actually see what was going on. I would suggest relocation to the opposite side of the line and moved to be adjacent roughly to the point leading from the approach (Down) line to the centre road.

 

The point at the LH end of the centre road would have to be a wide-to-gauge trap  (ie each switch blade worked independently and linked to its adjacent Up or Down line point) or a normal point with the addition of a scotch block. Otherwise there is no way of stopping a 'runaway' from the centre road from moving foul of one of the Up/Down roads.

 

I agree with moving the signal box to the opposite side of the line.  Good point about preventing runaways down the centre road; how would you model a wide to gauge trap?  Would there be extra point rodding to be added?  Or add a trap point there?- the centre road is there more as a means of running a loco around a train rather than stock storage. 

 

4 hours ago, imt said:

 

Yes, I think it does.  Before anybody can help you much with signalling you do need to think through the traffic movements you are likely to want.  As I have been politely told many times by the signalling gurus - installing signals and maintaining them is expensive and so signals are only put where needed.  You also might like to think about the slip out of the "goods" area - if it isn't a double maybe it ought to be for security; that is isolating the movements in the goods yard from the passenger lines.  Following on from that maybe one of the spurs towards the signal box ought to be longer to provide a head shunt?  If you don't you will have to use the out main line to shunt the yard??

 

Yes, the entry/ exit to the yard is via a double slip.  You have a valid point about a headshunt- duly added to the plan.

 

Re traffic movements.  I envisage the majority of passenger moves will be suburban trains come in, loco runs around and the train runs out again.  There will only be one or two expresses per running day in each direction, the starters are easy enough but the terminators the express would come in and the carriages worked back out 'to the sidings' by a station pilot, usually sitting at the end of the centre road.  

 

Parcels and perishables traffic would run to one of the platform roads, the loco would run around then haul it out the station and back into the bay road.  Sounds a faff but stops the loco being trapped!  As Rufford is a spur off the GCML I envisage most of this traffic being detached from mainline trains at Nottingham or Sheffield and tripped back. 

 

Freight comes into the yard loop.  Loco detaches and runs back, picks up the guards van and runs it down the loop to the short siding at the RH end.  A yard pilot then splits up the train sitting in the loop and works wagons either into the yard (RH end) or the coal yard (LH end).  Putting a train together for despatch takes much the same format, I envisage in the operating order a freight train will arrive early in the day, get split up and shunted and then toward the end of the order another freight train is put together for despatch. 

 

 

[James Harrison]

New trackplan attached now the intertubes are playing ball. 

[imt]

Wide-to-gauge trap points - see here 

There are many other references - just type your search into the RMWeb search box.  MUCH better than it used to be.

 

I strongly suggest you dont actually try to model them unless you feel driven to, but you might be able to set up some kind of dummy.

[RailWest]

Nothing wrong with that IMHO. However, an alternative perhaps to at least consider would be to 'swop' the positions of the two crossovers between the Up and Down approach roads.

 

This would reduce the extent of 'wrong direction' moves for anything coming out of the top three lines to go across to the Up main. Conversely it will shorten the yard head-shunt a little, but that ought not to make much difference to actual shunting as the relative positions of all the other yard points remain the same.

 

>>>Good point about preventing runaways down the centre road; how would you model a wide to gauge trap? 

In your plan, all that it would mean is that the two switch blades at the centre-road exit would move independently, rather than together, so normally both switches would be open rather than the usual 'one open and one closed' arrangement. A normal trap-point would be no good, as regardless of whether it 'threw' to the R or the L, anything coming off at it would foul one or other of the plaftorm roads.

 

>>> the centre road is there more as a means of running a loco around a train rather than stock storage...

But it is still a non-passenger line connecting into passenger lines, which need to be protected. And how often do you see a gas-tank wagon or similar stood at the buffers of such a centre line - almost a permanent fixture in many early termini :-)

[James Harrison]

I was thinking it wouldn't be possible to swap the leading/ trailing crossovers in the throat, because doing so would pull the yard down and for space reasons I wanted to keep the yard as close to the station as possible, but I had a look at it and managed to swap them.  It just means the centre road no longer has direct access to the incoming line, but I don't think that is going to lead to undue operational difficulty. 

 

Now, as to signalling it, my understanding is that coming into the station I'd want to be able to signal to come into the bay or the main incoming road, or to signal over the crossover and into the centre road, the main outgoing road or even straight over the double slip and into the yard entry road.  For all except the yard entry I'd also want calling-on signals, hence my initial idea of putting those 9 signals on a gantry over the running lines. 

 

For coming out of the station I'd want four starters- outgoing platform, centre road, incoming platform and bay- and a yard exit signal.  Then a signal- or pair of signals?- for the trailing crossover, to permit locos off the centre road to run back into the incoming road or even trains leaving wrong line to gain the right road.  And four or five ground signals for the centre road itself?

 

 

[RailWest]

Some random thoughts:-

 

1.  Why would you want running entry off the Down line into the centre road? Given its projected use, a simple shunt back into it from the Up line might suffice.

2. Would you really want CO arms for all those roads - are you planning to have more than one train at a time in the longer platforms? Given the projected (mostly) non-passenger use for the bay, it seems far too short to warrant it.

3. You now need just a simple trap-point at the LH exit from the centre road.

4. As a basic principle, just because a potential route exists does not mean you have to provide signals for it, if its actual use might be so minimal as to be covered by hand-signals if the need arises.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

16 minutes ago, RailWest said:

 2. Would you really want CO arms for all those roads - are you planning to have more than one train at a time in the longer platforms? Given the projected (mostly) non-passenger use for the bay, it seems far too short to warrant it.

 

Aren't they also used for light engines backing onto stock?  That said, I don't know whether the GCR used calling on signals: compare Garden Street (Grimsby) in 1910 which seem to have none with the same location in 1960 where they are provided for moves from the down line into the platforms.

 

16 minutes ago, RailWest said:

 3. You now need just a simple trap-point at the LH exit from the centre road.

 

Wouldn't you still need a wide-to-gauge trap due to passenger lines on both sides?

[James Harrison]

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

Some random thoughts:-

 

1.  Why would you want running entry off the Down line into the centre road? Given its projected use, a simple shunt back into it from the Up line might suffice.

2. Would you really want CO arms for all those roads - are you planning to have more than one train at a time in the longer platforms? Given the projected (mostly) non-passenger use for the bay, it seems far too short to warrant it.

3. You now need just a simple trap-point at the LH exit from the centre road.

4. As a basic principle, just because a potential route exists does not mean you have to provide signals for it, if its actual use might be so minimal as to be covered by hand-signals if the need arises.

 

 

1. Actually that's true isn't it, I'm using it mostly for running around. 

2. I'm not sure, realistically only the two main platform roads would require them.

3. If I do only need a 'normal' trap point then-excellent.

4. I think the main possible but unlikely route would be into the centre road. I'd still need to signal out of it though?

 

Thanks for the help!

[RailWest]

Re 4 - yes, but a simple shunt signal ought to suffice , as there is only one feasible route namely straight ahead on the Up line.

[James Harrison]

Something perhaps a little like this then?  Note that the mass of singles around the 3-way point on the centre road would be ground signals, but SCARM has quite a limited library.

 

 

 

Edit- just noticed I've missed signalling the trailing crossover...

Edited April 13, 2019 by James Harrison